Reparations? Really? Have you gone crazy?

I wish I would have saved the Facebook post I saw the other day, something to the effect of, “There ought to be an award for people who criticize the most without actually reading the article.”

Social media, with its barrage of headlines, blurbs, and limited characters, seems to temp people’s reflexes more than their critical thinking. I’ve seen even the normally-pensive turn into piranha once certain words of phrases step into the waters. Or is this just normal human nature?

I think it’s more the latter. Think about it: think how many times you’ve tried to have a political or religious conversation with someone of opposing views, only to be shot down, shut down, name-called, slandered, misrepresented, talked over, gang-tackled, or worse. From this phenomenon comes the great variety of memes and labels that each make 50 percent of the population laugh at the other in superiority, while oblivious to the fact that the other 50 percent is doing the same thing to them.

From this circus of media, we are blessed with derogations such as “Paulbots,” “nevertrumpers,” “neocons,” “libtards,” “homophobes,” “cuckservative,” and countless more—all of which, once established, can effectively shut down any conversation or argument no matter its merits. Granted, there may always be some cases in which some of these terms do actually apply to folk, but once meme status is achieved, the appellative becomes the stamp of unreason in virtually every application.

The worse aspect of this problem, however, is that it soon becomes the immediate go-to weapon before the whole article gets read, before all the nuances get considered, or even before the article gets read, period. Words become tools for bludgeoning a perceived enemy instead of tools of reason, discourse, education, and understanding. Christians, and Christian thinkers especially, ought to provide examples of the latter—and this often takes the exercise of the spiritual fruit of suspension of judgment and reaction for a good bit.

Along with political labels, there are also many words, phrases, ideas, or topics which historically can have the same effect of provoking mindless reaction and conversation-stopping. One of these I dared to put in print the other day, and from some quarters the reaction was predictable. From others, however, well, I wish I would have thought of that “didn’t read the article” award at the time. Some attributions of what I said, or was getting at, compared to what I actually wrote were fairly stark; and in most cases, I had already clearly addressed the misgiving in the article. I won’t take the time to write a “refutation” of everything that was said—pointless for many reasons, which, if not clear already, will be later—but I will offer a couple comments that hopefully will help all involved, except the rabid, overt racists—although I hope to convert as many of those as possible, too.

When I posted an article the other day to provide some intellectual background for my work on American slavery and racism, I dared utter a word that is on the “forbidden reading” shelf for conservatives: “reparations.”

That single word was all it took to unleash the guard dogs of the traditional canned arguments against the traditional “call” for reparations:

Not all blacks were slaves. How do we know who gets what?

How much do they get? It’s impossible to figure out. It’ll turn into a never-ending welfare money pit.

Who has to pay all this? I never owned slaves. Why should I have to pay?

You’re punishing the children for the sins of the fathers.

Why only blacks? What about all the whites who were also enslaved? Don’t they get reparations too? Why not?

So now all whites have to pay money to all blacks!? That’s crazy. You’re a leftist libtard.

Wouldn’t this be socialism? I thought you argue against socialism!

Where would we get the extra money? We’re already in debt.

There are so many problems with the reparations idea that we could never figure them all out! Why open this can of worms?

With these types of mostly self-justifying arguments—most of which can be answered easily, by the way—the traditional knee-jerking conservative shuts down the conversation for himself and his 50 percent. “You said ‘reparations.’ I’ve read Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams (they’re black by the way; ha ha on you!). So, you’re dumb. Next.”

Of course, had these Fox crusaders actually read the article, they would have crossed, just for starters, this:

The greatest problem for reparations now is, in fact, practical. It is that, after such great passage in time, how in the world we would account for who all gets paid, how much, for how long, and who has to pay it. At this point, I am less averse to having it paid from the general fund (assuming it would be cut from other areas of the budget, many of which are waste and idiocy anyway), even though this would seem to be the very type of socialism I myself decry. I think, however, that is not socialism per se, but a matter of justice delayed and yet due, and should have been exacted from the public wealth of the South to begin with. I would be happy to see other parts of actual socialistic bureaucracies denuded of budget to make restitution where it is due, could it actually be calculated and all the logistical and individual issues sorted out. This thinking of mine is purely conceptual and heuristic at this point.

There are many other problems, of course, as well as other issues.

Any critic who had any of the standard reservations against the traditional “reparations” argument should have seen from just this much that mine is hardly a traditional reparations argument, and, in fact, has little in common with it. Further, I went out of my way to acknowledge that this is only a starting point for discussion (not a “call for reparations” by Joel McDurmon), that conservatives (instead of liberals and far left leftists)—especially the churches—should have been out in front of the conversation, and that there are many problems and issues to overcome.

But the most that any critic seemed to have gotten from this paragraph was one guy who argued, “Why does only the South have to pay?” Talk about tunnel vision.

Read the text! I did not say only the South should have to pay. I said it should have paid originally, to begin with. As the loses of a war, obviously, it should have paid the spoils, and the spoils should have gone at least in part to the victims of their crime. To make matters worse, the victims were promised some of the spoils; they never got it.

Today, however, if there were to be payments, it would obviously have to be a national issue with many more nuances and angles addressed. Again, this needs to be addressed more in the way I just mentioned above.

Then, to make matters even clearer, I concluded like this:

I say we should instead start planning a comprehensive, conservative biblical program of healing race relations, not even shying from considering reparations on the table. It will involve many issues, like criminal justice reform, what repentance in this area looks like, how, in fact, the issueactuallygets resolved so that itis resolved, etc. [emphasis now added].

One of the complaints I heard was that “reparations” would be a never-ending punishment for whites and a perpetual welfare scheme. But see how I just addressed that already? Someone didn’t read the article.

The opposite knee-jerk also appeared: what an insult it is to think you can just pay money and everything will suddenly be ok!

No, I didn’t say that; but if there is a material reparation to be considered as part of healing race relations, then we need some objective criteria to avoid the political equivalent of eternal punishment. This is a legitimate concern for taxpayers. Settling it will have to be part of a larger discussion about what else full healing involves. Nobody here is trying to dole out hush money to get it over with; but we need to have an adult conversation where at least some objective criteria are able to have the upper hand over the emotional conversation-stopping by all sides.

All of this is not to say that there were not some able, level-headed, and helpful criticisms and comments to the previous article. There certainly were, and I welcome them. There were, in fact, some very helpful ideas looking forward, and I thank the people, like Creation Ministries’ Rob Carter, who helped make them.

It is my hope and prayer that by braving these early stone-throws from the reactionaries—who, as I said in the previous piece, are more fearful of the overall “leftism” with which they’ve associated the issue wholesale than they would be of the truth, were they to consider it more dispassionately—I can help start a broader discussion among Christians and conservatives, and inspire a passion for this issue which not only sees it through to some meaningful reform, but also itself inspires the drive needed to see the connections to other issues like criminal justice, the war on drugs, drug addiction treatment, and so much more, so that further needed reforms will develop there too.

In the meantime, I don’t mind the few volleys of unreason. I can exhibit them as examples of what to avoid, and I can provide an example for Christian leaders of how first to endure them, and then avoid engaging in them ourselves. Our Lord knows that many of our black brethren have endured them long enough. Who is brave enough to stand beside them for the law of God and truth?

Consider partnering with us

Who will apply for reparations for the millions of White people who were denied college entrance, a job, job advancement, raises, loans, mortgages and lots of other things with a financial value, by AFFIRMATIVE ACTION? Where would one apply? The NAACP? Southern Poverty Scammers? BLM? Who can begin to calculate the amount due? Since the current President (for only 12 more days, thank God!) probably benefited more than any other American from Affirmative Action, I suggest the first thing we do is relieve him of ALL of his ill gotten gains, probably at least $25,000,000.00, that he never would have collected as a Community Organizer, and divide that among all those that can prove an Affirmative Action prejudice cost them anything!

David Parker

Exactly. As Joel said, that is what we have to work out.
God demands restitution for sins past, now how to make restitution for sins past? The house of Saul had to pay for the murderous acts of Saul and God wasn’t going to heal the land until restitution, in this case blood, was completed. The socialists and the statists, the corrupt magistrates including the supreme court, the agents and cops and other standing armies who took that tainted government paycheck in return for enforcing unlawful statutes are the ones who should pay – the promoters and dealers of government largess – not the ones who took advantage of an opportunity to pick up a college degree or a pay raise because through corrupt government largesse.
I am all for relieving Obozo of the spoils he’s appropriated during his tenure as token black in the White House. I would say he was promoted beyond his capability except that his task was to destroy, not build. Anyone can destroy, even such a spoiled brat as Obozo.

S.A. Miller

Joel–in an attempt to speak the truth with love–it seems to me that you have a COLOSSAL dose of white guilt. Whether you like it or not some things are just not fixable and no amount of reparations will undo the past. So, If you are really concerned about the issue of slavery, you could get involved in ending the human trafficking going on right NOW–particularly the sex slavery rampant around the world. The saddest thing is that America is no exception in this area. The slavery that you abhor might very well be happening in your neck of the woods.

tionico

When I consider that the South were illegally invaded by the Union, and the hideous damage done to the entire area at the hands of Lincoln’s men sent to do his bidding, and particulrly General William Tecumseh Sherman as he and his “men” marched from Atlanta to Savannah, burning, pillaging, destroying, everything in a twenty mile wide swath, I’d say most of the wealth of the South accumulated due to the labour of the slaves was already taken. Further, after the surrender, when slaves were forcefully “freed”, sure, the slave-master relationsip was severed…. but the ruin perpetrated upon both classes of people was near complete. The formerly productive plantations were suddenly rendered nearly worthless, the formerly occupied AND PROVIDED FOR slaves were suddenly bereft of all but the clothing on their backs…. no home, no food, no work, no income to replace the “in kind” provision formerly had on the land…. then, as they wandered aimlessly, hungry, weary, homeless, they were a real threat wherever they went. Milions of them, looking for some means of feeding and sheltering their families, became an existential threat…. not through any action of their own. Had the North put in place a system of gradual ending, which was already happening on its own in many places of the South, taught trades, perhaps even hired for wages by their former “owners”, (which was forbidden), perhaps the “reconstruction” of the South would have been more “decently and in order” than the aftermath of an unjust war. WHO will repay those families of the South who lost all, either directly from military actions or the rendering worthless of their estates when all the labour was forced to leave almost overnight? A whole economy and flow of funds cannot be suddenly and fundamentally changed overnight.

Then, consider all the democrat party plans that pay the descendants of those slaves to continue on in aimless, mostly worthless, existences….. how will THEY be compensated?

No, “reparations” paid today will do nothing to remedy the harms done in the past. The North are as guilty as the South for these abuses. Many blacks who made the determination they would NOT conitnue in the abject poverty, street life, chaos and anarchy of today’s ghettoes and rose up out of it now turn about and do what they can to raise up their own to better lives.. but most refuse. The poverty, moral rot, violence, are deeply embedded, and rests very much on the decades of “free money” handed out. I’d say those monies are more than adequate as “reparations”. Except that the “free lunch” is a trravesty, sentiencing millions to a poverty their slave forbears rarely even knew. Long life expectancy and godly moral standards at least reigned in the days of slavery. But the black ministers have largely sold their people down the river, too…. failing to impart godly values and character to their flocks…..

Kernelp

“SLAVERY IS A CRIME? REALLY? DID YOU READ THIS IS IN THE BIBLE OR HEAR IT FROM THE PAIP OF ROME?”

Just more bare assertions from the poor misguided logician in chief at AV. Above he mentioned “tools of reason.” I guess if you are the paip of AV you can define reason as you wish.

Dr. McDurmon, until you prove from Scripture that slavery is a crime, it is not. This is something new and as they say, nothing new is good and nothing good is new. To paraphrase Charles Hodge, “nothing new comes out of Princeton.” McDurmonis acting like John Robbins.

Don’t believe this is new doctrine? Hear the testimony of the old timers.

Dr. John Henry Hopkins, bishop of VT (1861) : “The voice of the entire Catholic (or universal) Church, on the one side, and the Bishop of Pennsylvania with his hundred and sixty-four clergymen on the other, will then present a
contrast which should convert the most zealous ultra-abolitionist, unless he be determined to scorn alike the plain sense of the Bible, and the unanimous consent of all its chief expounders, for eighteen hundred years together.”

Dr. Nehemiah Adams, a Bostonian and Andover Theological Seminary graduate: “Zeal against American slavery has thus been one of the chief modern foes to the Bible. Let him who would not become an infidel and atheist beware and not follow his sensibilities, as affected by cases of distress, in preference to the word of God, which is the unhappy fate of some who have made a shipwreck of their faith in their zeal against slavery.”

Let us hear Mark Noll, contemporary church historian: “For over thirty years Americans battled each other exegetically on this issue, with the more orthodox and the ones who took most seriously the authority of Scripture being also the ones most likely to conclude that the Bible sanctioned slavery. . . . “The country and the churches were both in trouble because the remedy that finally solved the question of how to interpret the Bible was recourse to arms. The supreme crisis over the Bible was that there existed no apparent biblical resolution to the crisis. As I have written elsewhere, it was up to those consummate theologians, the Reverend Doctors Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, to decide what in fact the Bible actually meant. . .” and “As things worked out military coercion determined that, at least for the purposes of American public policy, the Bible did not support slavery.” ”

There are others. These are cream of the crop yanquis. MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT.

McDurmon wrote a book on just warfare. He should not be making comments like this: “I said it should have paid originally, to begin with. As the loses of a war, obviously, it should have paid the spoils, and the spoils should have gone at least in part to the victims of their crime.”

Does McDurmon think Lincoln’s war was a just war? I dunno. I know what Madison said: In the convention of 1787 a proposition was actually made to authorize the employment of force against a delinquent State. To this proposition Mr. Madison replied : “The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might have been bound.”

Lincoln invaded the South without a declaration of war, plundered and burned and McDurmon thinks they should have paid for crimes which were not crimes with money they did not have. PFFTTT This is ignorant.

It was a wise decision to stop supporting AV.

Now on the lighter side. I have at least 16 slave owning grand fathers AND one GGGF was a black man. Think I’ll make my wife pay me reparations. I need night sights for my M&P.

tionico

the word :slave” in the bible is rather different than the same word as used in Colonial and Antebellum America. By it the bible means what today is more accurately called “indentured servitude”. Cause damage and can’t pay? Borrow money, squander or otherewise lose it and can’t pay? Have some catastrophe visit you and go bust? You could then indenture yourself either for a statedperiod of time or until the debt was paid. This was called “slavery”. On the other hand, when Egypt’s Pharoah turned Isael into slaves, god judged Egypt for it. when He brought them out with His mighty hand He caused them to pour wealth into their hands… reparations, in quite a real sense.

So, what KIND of slavery are you looking at in the bible? The type as practiced in the US antebellum WAS and remains antibiblical. Remember, there was also the Year of Jubilee, wherein all indentured or indebted were to be released. The likely fact it was never actualised does not negate its mandate.

Kernelp

I am familiar with slavery as a penal sanction in the Bible.

>So, what KIND of slavery are you looking at in the bible?The type as practiced in the US antebellum WAS and remains antibiblical.Remember, there was also the Year of Jubilee, wherein all indentured or indebted were to be released. <

What does this mean? Lu 4:19 TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD."

JFB commentary: 19. acceptable year–an allusion to the jubilee year (Le 25:10), a year of universal release for person and property. (See also Isa 49:8; 2Co 6:2.) As the maladies under which humanity groans are here set forth under the names of poverty, broken-heartedness, bondage, blindness, bruisedness (or crushedness), so, as the glorious HEALER of all these maladies, Christ announces Himself in the act of reading it, stopping the quotation just before it comes to "the day of vengeance," which was only to come on the rejecters of His message (Joh 3:17). The first words, "THE SPIRIT of the LORD is upon ME," have been noted since the days of the Church Fathers, as an illustrious example of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being exhibited as in distinct yet harmonious action in the scheme of salvation.

Jubilee was a type of Christ to which He testified, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

The jubilee has been fulfilled.

Grace Achord

It seems that reparations would look an awful lot like the help they are already getting. All of the government “help” has done the opposite of helping them. Giving them more of the same will not fix anything. Unless your real aim is not actually for their betterment, but is instead centered around atoning for the supposed guilt you feel that’s been heaped upon all white people. If you’re really “brave enough to stand beside them for the law of God and truth,” then move in next door and be salt and light where they can see it. Instead of abandoning them to their vices, bring your white virtue with you into the neighborhood and change it from within. More material handouts aren’t the fix.

UnreconstructedRebel

Any case for “reparations” for American slavery must begin by demonstrating that African blacks in America were injured or deprived of better lives and economic opportunities than had they been left in the diseased, barbaric squalor of darkest Africa. By any objective measure, blacks fared better under American slavery – morally, physically, spiritually and economically – than did their kin who were left behind in the malarial fens and jungles.

So, all of this talk of reparations is just meaningless cant by those who desire the praise of our sick society at the cost of slandering our forebears. It’s not only dishonest, it’s wicked.

David Parker

The talk is how the church can do now what it should have done centuries ago.

UnreconstructedRebel

You seem to have completely missed the point of my comment, which is that there is no rational case for reparations, not centuries ago, and not today.

Josh Andersen

People with an “arm chair” grip on one hundred excuses as to why “reparations” are vain just show that their heart is full of greed. You love money so much that you could not give a nickel to a man and it have the probability of being used in vain. Your hearts prove there is a root of wickedness that permeates your entire being. You are an idolater. Don’t make any more excuses. You lost this life and live for Christ. Unless of course you have fooled your self and you have actually buried your self in your wickedness covering it over with theology to support your greed. “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

lois

My thought….the blacks have been given, given, given, given, if they have their way, they’ll want everything the white man has created. They want what the white man has period. Affirmative action has put blacks on jobs, sometimes they are not qualified. My neighbor was going to nursing school, and she noticed the black students were given a pass on many things, and given grades to pass, when they didn’t deserve it.

Lincoln was going to transport the blacks back to their homeland, Africa, but unfortunately he was assassinated.

tionico

that was more to remove them fron this land.. he despised them and found them a nuisance. It had nothing to do with what was right. Their life to have been expected back in Africa would have been far worse than their plight today. And he knew it.

WilliamSpires

I am with reparations 100 per cent. As soon as we convene all slaves and slaveholders so the holders can pay reparations to former slaves. Convene a panel to determine any slaves fathered by owners which may reduce their compensation. The African chieftains who sold their tribe members will also have to pay restitution. An additional problem is determining any abolitionists in the south who fought slavery; we wouldn’t want to punish southerners who are not guilty. Chasing down those pesky northerners who took advantage of slavery on the sly could prove difficult also. However, the largest and unsurmountable problem is locating the guilty parties and wronged victims. Since time travel is not yet feasible, we may just want to concentrate on improving relations among all races and countries, especially in light of the current trend of world governments to enslave all who oppose their tyranny.

tionico

and please don’t ignore the role the moslem slavers, who bought the kidnapped tribal members, drove them by forced march to seaports, forced them onto the slav ships, and took money for each live one delivered…… it was a VERY lucrative trade for some moslem “families”…….. THEY should also be made to repay……

daverkb

Very good points made!

In Anglo-Saxon/English and American Law, and that is before the Law was run to perversion, there had to be an injured party bringing complaint for remedy before a Common Law judge. This had to be an flesh and blood living man or woman who had suffered an actual injury, harm, and/or trespass by another living man or woman. Today, we live in the world of artificial persons, corporatized persons, and we do this by a magic trick which causes us to forsake God’s created reality for a world of abstraction. Increasingly, this abstracted world is little more than a bankrupt world operating by fraud. In abandoning God and the reality of his creation, we have truly fashioned the house built upon sifting sand.

In essence, those who treat of reparations ask living people to pay for the injury to those long
dead, those who no longer able to accept, receive remedy into their hands. Those who promote reparations do not care that the living asked to pay are faultless, have committed no crime. But those who are seek reparations do so by bearing a false witness through a weaponed sense of false guilt, and are willing to do so by the coercion of the state.

To entertain reparations for historical slavery, one has to be a committed Marxist Social Justice Warrior. Enter the Holy Collectivized Brotherhood of Man, both beautiful and proud – a god unto its sanctimonious self. And kiss two thousand years of Christian sensibility good-bye.

JoeMudd

Joel, I am surprised that you were surprised at the reaction you got to your post. I read it, and am still puzzled as to why you chose that subject, let alone that terminology. Of course the word “reparations” is inflammatory, it characterizes a lot of bitterness. You might as well of began your article with “if I ever had considered perversion….”
The Church is made up of a lot of individuals, each doing their best to represent their Lord and Savior, to daily walk out a righteous response to the world around them. The last thing we need is for someone to dump the condemnation of “never enough ” upon us, which is what “reparations” has come to mean, “I will never be sorry enough for the past which I had no control over.”
My family visited Germany, focused on Berlin and Potsdam in June of 2015. After visiting countless WWII memorial sites, and one depicting the cruelty toward the Jewish people, I turned and asked our local friend “how long will the German people be required to apologize for their past?” He responded, “forever.” Sadly, I believe this requirement has put the good German people in a tough place right now, proving that they do not “hate” anyone. (Mrs.Joe Mudd)

antiliberalcryptonite

Get a job like the rest of us.

daverkb

I find both articles on ‘reparations’ so diffuse that I cannot quite fathom what your final stance might be on any particular positing of the issues, especially when all is taken in sum? Nor do I see any clear Biblical determinations being made as to how such might be actuated into process of Law?

I also note that you are dismissive of ‘canned arguments’ as though ‘uncanned’ (not stipulated) might be quite superior to that of ‘canned.’ And with these two words, you appear to sweep aside anything which the alleged ‘canned argument’ people might have to say to us. This may not have been your intention, but most assuredly, this is how it is going to look to a lot of folks.

Finally, some questions regarding reparations: how would reparations be brought into execution? Who has actually suffered in Law actual harm or injury? What form would this harm or injury by written statement take in an Affidavit of Truth so filed in a court of record? Who are the defendants by a bill of injury? And can restitution be made without creating a new class of aggrieved litigants wherein the attempt to remedy itself causes trespass or harm? And this is just a start.

David Parker

That’s what Joel said!

CAPF

For those who have access to McDurmon’s Facebook page, you undoubtedly know that Joel is notorious for blocking people who make comments he doesn’t like. These are not necessarily nasty, name-calling comments, but rather people asking him some hard questions. And yet, here he is complaining in this post that he can’t seem to have a productive exchange with people who have an opposing view.

Interestingly enough, blocking people who make opposing comments doesn’t seem to happen often on American Vision’s website. Is that because the bigger donors comment more on the website than they do on Facebook? Who knows!

It was ironic that when the comments about Joel’s recent article on reparations became more negative than positive, he quickly posted a cluster of tamer articles – one written months ago – thus causing the controversial article with it’s negative comments to a less visual position on the main page.

Joel, getting the conversation started may well have to patiently go through each of these counterpoints you have written about. The difficulties of reparations demands a patient point by point argument showing your premise and assumptions are not unreasonable nor impossible.

daverkb

An excellent point! But I must add this: reparations must be possible in Law. And by Law I mean the American body of law thinking before it had been run to perversion by the emerging corporate state.

annie48

Guess 40 acres and a mule are not considered “spoils.” Hmmm, always wondered where the gov GOT the 40 acres. Were they all in the south? Didn’t the North have slaves too?

Joel McDurmon

They never got it. Only a very few. So, you’re on the right track. Just need to get consistent with it.